The recent reconsideration of Global Warming Alarmism in the The Economist - the best news magazine in the English speaking world - because of growing evidence of dimminished sensitivity to ACO2, ought to inspire other reconsiderations.

Such as why do journalists so reflexively defend establishment science against criticism as though dissenters are hillbilly hicks?

Historian and environmental scholar for the Washington, DC-based think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, says "That this [climbdown] appears in The Economist is significant, because this august British news organ has been fully on board with climate alarmism for years now. A Washington-based Economist correspondent admitted to me privately several years ago that the senior editors in London had mandated consistent and regular alarmist climate coverage in its pages."

The fix to put lipstick on this pig came down from the highest levels. My guess is that the "Economist correspondent" in question is Megan Mcardle, who long blogged as "Jane Galt."

The establishment's denialism has grown worse since Climategate in 2009.

Hayward continues, The Economist hedges "with every reservation to Keep Hope Alive, [which] is nonetheless a clear sign that it’s about over for the climate campaign.

"While climateers continue to beat the drum that each year is among the hottest since Satan opened his first furnace at Hades Hostel for Hapless Heathens, there has been an embarrassed silence, if not outright denial (heh), that temperatures have flattened out over the last 15 years. Now even the leading climateers can’t maintain a straight face over this...."

The hard facts cannot be denied by realists. It "includes this zinger," notes Hayward, instructively: “If climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, climate sensitivity would be on negative watch.”

If even the policy conscious mag The Economist can learn new tricks about this woefully dodgy science, can canonical science magazines like New Scientist be far behind?

DISCUSS: how hedged and acidly termed will the establishment climb-down be?

SOURCE
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/03/climate-change-endgame-in-sight.php

You might possibly be getting a little over-excited by The Economist's article. The leader after all ends by saying:

If the world has a bit more breathing space to deal with global warming, that will be good. But breathing space helps only if you actually do something with it.

And where does this stuff about Megan Mcardle come from? Wiki says she left the magazine in 2007...

I think The Economist, like the Royal Society, is a victim of the 'Let's Make the CO2 Scare our Vehicle of Choice Tendency'. Slick trash winning them over rather than solid science - they were well and truly Gored. Sic transit and all that.

The thing is though the CAGW line doesn't befit a high quality and neutral journal such as The Economist. I too have never been able to reconcile how they typically take the middle ground and intelligently look at both sides of the argument and yet always bang the alarmist drum when it comes to the warming world story.

A climbdown from the position would mean issuing an admission of error. And warmists just don't do that, especially not as the science has been settled for so long. So I expect MMGW will somply die a slow death and simply not be spoken about anymore.

Ocean Acidification and the threat to Diversification on the otherhand 'require' similar draconian policy responses and would be a good alternative to raise the alarm..

The amazing thing is that there was so little questioning of CAGW, especially from people who should have been critical, such as the RS.

I'd say The Economist was going with the herd and it would have found it uncomfortable going against it.

Now it's got to the stage where questions are being asked, such as "Can a tulip bulb really be worth as much as a house?" and there's at least a desire for a little less exposure to the bouyant tulip market which may - temporarily - have overreached itself and be due for a correction.

YES, Megan Mcardle has been around since doing an MBA at the University of Chicago: she blogged as "JaneGalt," worked for The Economist, then The Atlantic, lately at the Daily Beast. Along the way, she relocated to Washington, DC, and married journalist Peter Suderman, turned associate editor at Reason magazine.

The point is that she's well situated to share with a policy wonk like Dr. Steven Hayward what she learned at the Economist - and also share it among allied policy wonk circles like Hayward who lived in DC until last year, working for AEI.

The thing is though the CAGW line doesn't befit a high quality and neutral journal such as The Economist. I too have never been able to reconcile how they typically take the middle ground and intelligently look at both sides of the argument and yet always bang the alarmist drum when it comes to the warming world story.

A climbdown from the position would mean issuing an admission of error. And warmists just don't do that, especially not as the science has been settled for so long. So I expect MMGW will somply die a slow death and simply not be spoken about anymore.

FarleyR, you may very well be correct! Too much money, too much energy, too many institutional capital has been vested in the fact of global warming for any dedicated climb down. Instead it may be de facto.

Although WE remember the climategate spec quote about "they'll probably kill us" if they're wrong! Insert quote from Samuel Johnson: “The prospect of death wonderfully concentrates the mind.” Or at least the deceiving, dishonest mind.

The point of my post is that The Economist has been promoting AGW-alarm because of decisions at the highest levels. Apart from the issue of cui bono, what's going on? This once august news journal is only one of many beating the drums of alarm for many years.

Political-cultural? Why the slavish authoritarianism everywhere?

Orson,

The state knows best. Individualism is bad and income inequality is worst of all. Extrapolate these concepts to their logical conclusions and we end with the failed communist state, which everyone except the fanatics saw coming. Windmills are the same -onshore wind is a poor policy response, but the the crazies don't see it yet, but they will eventually. Maybe the RSPB too..

Another problematic leftie concept is 'solidarity' coupled with the need to be 'fair'. Recently the Dutch labour party was talking about the requirement that governement spending cuts shouldn't affect the poor in the Netherlands *or any other country*. i.e. foreign aid mustn't be subject to cuts. What they are saying is that they feel more solidarity with foreign poor than domestic rich. And so distributing weath to the former fromt he latter is perfectly fine. For them maybe, for me it borders on treason as it isn't in your national interests. But that's just me maybe...

Being socialist is easy - means never having to say no - that's the job of those b**tards on the right who end up paying for it all.